The Dark Knight Rises Should the Nolanverse Continue After Batman III?

[Doc Samson]

Reboots are for franchises that have failed or have laid dormant for many years. Neither which will apply to the next batman when nolan decides to leave.

I just posted something about this in another thread, but this is the sole reason why I think Nolan might end this trilogy in such a way that stops the continuation of this version of Batman.

Everybody knows, regardless of quality, that the next installment will be huge, numbers-wise, and because of this, I can't see how the execs wouldn't want to throw another movie out there relatively quick, and somewhat in the same vein. I'm guessing just from Nolan's comments on where his Batman stands in relation to other superhero movies, and the DC universe in general, that he wouldn't want some bastardized version of his Batman thrown out there by some other director. I think his ending will go far in thwarting that...

 

[Dr.Dude]

A reboot would be pointless. Of course, I'll admit I'm just incredibly sick of reboots in general, at this point.

They shouldn't do a direct sequel, though. As others have said, they should just do new stories following the same vague continuity as the previous three movies, the same way that the comics move onto a new creative team.

I don't think they should launch right into a whole new story arc, though. I'd prefer to see some experimental one-offs and that sort of thing - for example, an Arkham Asylum movie that was done in the same weird style as the comic (like that fantastic fan-trailer a few years back) could be amazing.

 

[Two-Face]

WB shouldn't just reboot for sake of it but though I wanna see Two-Face more this time if there is a reboot since he's dead in Nolan's version.

 

[zman]

I agree but when you think of it, how could you apply TwoFace's concept to another movie where he doesn't die? he couldn't exactly walk down the street and expect not to be recognized. Wearing a mask would be of little help. He'd have to hide constantly. Being mad (as in crazy) I guess he could, but that would give limited possibilities, scenario wise. he'd have to ask his henchmen (lets not even go into how he'd recruit them) to buy him stuff with the money he stole, whether its a car or some milk down the street... at least Joker could KIND OF blend in when without makeup.

 

[zman]

so when you think of it this way, Two face could be the hardest batman villain to transpose (and keep alive, besides locking him in Arkam) in a movie

 

[Two-Face]

We saw Harvey's story that's fine I like that but Two-Face wasn't much in it and was killed by Batman in order to save Gordon's kid. I just wanna bad ass Two-Face. Best one I remember is BTAS version.

 

[Wesley Dodds]

Nope.

After BM3, If DC are smart, they'll get their act together and begin work on the "DC movie universe" so many of us crave... If rumours are to be believed, Green Lantern is the first entry into their combined universe idea.
Batman's the one holding them back...

Nolan should wrap up his trilogy and then the next time we see Batman should be in the JLA movie, IMO.

 

[General Vulcun]

^As long as Nolan is involved in the Superman reboot in some way, then like Batman, Superman is going to retain his individuality and not be part of a larger DC universe, at least for that film.

I also heard that the supposed references to Batman and Superman in the Green Lantern film were removed.

 

[Wesley Dodds]

^As long as Nolan is involved in the Superman reboot in some way, then like Batman, Superman is going to retain his individuality and not be part of a larger DC universe, at least for that film.

I also heard that the supposed references to Batman and Superman in the Green Lantern film were removed.

WE don't know any of that for cerain, though. Which is what makes it all so frustrating to talk about with any kind of authority...

 

[ALittlePush]

I agree but when you think of it, how could you apply TwoFace's concept to another movie where he doesn't die? he couldn't exactly walk down the street and expect not to be recognized. Wearing a mask would be of little help. He'd have to hide constantly. Being mad (as in crazy) I guess he could, but that would give limited possibilities, scenario wise. he'd have to ask his henchmen (lets not even go into how he'd recruit them) to buy him stuff with the money he stole, whether its a car or some milk down the street... at least Joker could KIND OF blend in when without makeup.

Just imagine Joker having to buy some milk

 

[Doc Samson]

The thing is, it would be incredibly hard to do anything after this third film if it isn't a reboot of some kind

Scenario 1 is a direct sequel, you just continue the stories set in this established universe. But if you do that, essentially, your hands are already tied.

-Two-Face is dead
-Ras is dead
-Nolan himself is uncomfortable including his version of the Joker in another film, how could the audience accept anyone else doing it?
-And depending on who they use for this next movie, all of the "realistic" characters are pretty much used up. If you decide to bend the rules to include a Clayface or Mr. Freeze, then your not really in the same world anymore, and it's for all intents and purposes, a reboot.

Scenario 2 is a vague continuity or a loosely based spiritual successor, but anytime I've seen anything like that, it's essentially, a reboot.

And for these reasons, I don't think it would be wise to let another director do a "Nolan" Batman. A reboot doesn't have to mean another origin. At this point, it probably couldn't be done better, and it's completely unnecessary anyway. I say reboot it, bring back a more fantastical, mythical Batman, and do something different. Anything slightly different in tone or the established rules is basically a reboot regardless

 

[General Vulcun]

^ if they did decide to continue on, acknwoeldging the events Nolan has setup, there is no reason they have to stick with Nolan's realism or interpretations of the characters. A new director, a new vision of Gotham, Batman, etc.. The only thing that would necessarily stay the same is that the events of Nolan's films would be acknowledged, but lots of other stuff could be done differently.

The only downside, for sure, would be no more Two-Face, but I felt they did such a good job with the character in TDK that they really don't have to bring him back. Nolan could get away with "killing" Ra's, because we all know what Ra's has in his back-pocket. Any director that comes after him can bring the character back with the Lazarus Pit if neceesary.

 

[Doc Samson]

^ if they did decide to continue on, acknwoeldging the events Nolan has setup, there is no reason they have to stick with Nolan's realism or interpretations of the characters. A new director, a new vision of Gotham, Batman, etc.. The only thing that would necessarily stay the same is that the events of Nolan's films would be acknowledged, but lots of other stuff could be done differently.

The only downside, for sure, would be no more Two-Face, but I felt they did such a good job with the character in TDK that they really don't have to bring him back. Nolan could get away with "killing" Ra's, because we all know what Ra's has in his back-pocket. Any director that comes after him can bring the character back with the Lazarus Pit if neceesary.

I can't agree, the world is pretty established, and while certain things of course were far-fetched, I don't believe tinkering with it is anything other than a reboot. The Lazarus pit just isn't plausible in the universe Nolan's created, if you allow that, then you should theoretically be able to include Man-Bat or Clayface, and once you get there, it's not the same place at all anymore. If you don't stick with Nolan's realism or interpretation, it's a reboot basically, so they should just do that and go with a more mythical version of Batman in a whole new universe

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I always felt the Nolanverse should be an opening for something more fantastical. It shouldn't close itself off and not allow more and more far-fetched things.

I think they should do a requel, kinda like TIH.

 

[antsman41]

I had this idea last night for the title of Batman 3 which can inturn be able to spawn of a reboot...

Batman 3 can be called "The Legend of the Caped Crusader," I wish it could be LOTDK, but TDK is taken...

The third film could end with some kids or teenagers about to ask someone, "Have you heard about the legend of the caped crusader?" and that's when the title card pops up/end trilogy.

And, from there on out have the next trilogy be alittle more fantastical but keeping Nolanverse as the foundation. With escalation isn't there more of something no one (bruce) could anticipate. Just because Nolan won't do Clayface/Mr.Freeze doesn't mean the next director can't. We can't re-do the origin, that be dumb. It's best to now pull a James Bond story expansion in future movies. They can all roughly relate trilogy to trilogy but can contain their own characteristics within...

 

[General Vulcun]

I can't agree, the world is pretty established, and while certain things of course were far-fetched, I don't believe tinkering with it is anything other than a reboot. The Lazarus pit just isn't plausible in the universe Nolan's created, if you allow that, then you should theoretically be able to include Man-Bat or Clayface, and once you get there, it's not the same place at all anymore. If you don't stick with Nolan's realism or interpretation, it's a reboot basically, so they should just do that and go with a more mythical version of Batman in a whole new universe

Nolan's world has been established, but the timeline isn't restricted to just his world. I'm sure his final film is going to end on a final note as far as Bruce's arc is concerned, but the events themselves carry on. A new director could come in with a slightly altered version of Nolan's world, and still continue off the events that occured before.

I personally don't think it's impossible at all, and it wouldn't be too distracting either. It's not Nolan breaking the consistency of his world by changing up the rules that he has established for his trilogy. That would be even more distracting, IMO. But someone coming in and basically producing Vol.2 in the timeline wouldn't be very distracting at all.

For one, if Nolan is going to continue to be part of the Bat-Franchise, then I'm betting he might seeing the transition from one style to the next, making sure things run smoothly, but it would still be the new director & his crew's creative vision that they're bringing to this new volume. Because if these 2 volumes (and more if WB wants to continue the timeline with another creative team, again, in the future) take place in the same timeline, then you can choose to view them as sequels to each other without much difficulty because they're not the same team, but if the next volume is done with the method Nolan used (ie making each film work as its own stand alone film in addition to being a sequel), then this next volume can work as its own stand alone trilogy apart from Nolan's trilogy as well.

It's a win-win situation for people who both want to continue what Nolan started but also want a new vision and more "out there" characters. I know they're not the same medium, but this way is very similar to how comics work. The styles of both Year One and Long Halloween are very different from each other; differently written, different in visual style, etc., but how many people are comfortable looking at those 2 comics back-to-back, despite their differences, and willing to place them within the same continuity of each other? I know I am, and I'm fairly confident a lot of other people do as well. So strickly speaking about method, if it can work with comics then why can't it work in film? Why can't 2 sets of films by 2 different creative teams share the same continuity while still making their own distinctive stamp on the character?

 

[antsman41]

Nolan's world has been established, but the timeline isn't restricted to just his world. I'm sure his final film is going to end on a final note as far as Bruce's arc is concerned, but the events themselves carry on. A new director could come in with a slightly altered version of Nolan's world, and still continue off the events that occured before.

I personally don't think it's impossible at all, and it wouldn't be too distracting either. It's not Nolan breaking the consistency of his world by changing up the rules that he has established for his trilogy. That would be even more distracting, IMO. But someone coming in and basically producing Vol.2 in the timeline wouldn't be very distracting at all.

For one, if Nolan is going to continue to be part of the Bat-Franchise, then I'm betting he might seeing the transition from one style to the next, making sure things run smoothly, but it would still be the new director & his crew's creative vision that they're bringing to this new volume. Because if these 2 volumes (and more if WB wants to continue the timeline with another creative team, again, in the future) take place in the same timeline, then you can choose to view them as sequels to each other without much difficulty because they're not the same team, but if the next volume is done with the method Nolan used (ie making each film work as its own stand alone film in addition to being a sequel), then this next volume can work as its own stand alone trilogy apart from Nolan's trilogy as well.

It's a win-win situation for people who both want to continue what Nolan started but also want a new vision and more "out there" characters. I know they're not the same medium, but this way is very similar to how comics work. The styles of both Year One and Long Halloween are very different from each other; differently written, different in visual style, etc., but how many people are comfortable looking at those 2 comics back-to-back, despite their differences, and willing to place them within the same continuity of each other? I know I am, and I'm fairly confident a lot of other people do as well. So strickly speaking about method, if it can work with comics then why can't it work in film? Why can't 2 sets of films by 2 different creative teams share the same continuity while still making their own distinctive stamp on the character?

This.

Have Nolan be a Executive Producer for the next trilogy along with the Superman one...

Also, I like your point/metaphor to look at these trilogies as different graphic novels...

Yes, Year One and TLH were different art, etc... but that doesn't stop people from putting in the same timeline. Hell, I have Hush and Year One in the same timeline but totally different Batman's/etc...

 

[Doc Samson]

Nolan's world has been established, but the timeline isn't restricted to just his world. I'm sure his final film is going to end on a final note as far as Bruce's arc is concerned, but the events themselves carry on. A new director could come in with a slightly altered version of Nolan's world, and still continue off the events that occured before.

I personally don't think it's impossible at all, and it wouldn't be too distracting either. It's not Nolan breaking the consistency of his world by changing up the rules that he has established for his trilogy. That would be even more distracting, IMO. But someone coming in and basically producing Vol.2 in the timeline wouldn't be very distracting at all.

For one, if Nolan is going to continue to be part of the Bat-Franchise, then I'm betting he might seeing the transition from one style to the next, making sure things run smoothly, but it would still be the new director & his crew's creative vision that they're bringing to this new volume. Because if these 2 volumes (and more if WB wants to continue the timeline with another creative team, again, in the future) take place in the same timeline, then you can choose to view them as sequels to each other without much difficulty because they're not the same team, but if the next volume is done with the method Nolan used (ie making each film work as its own stand alone film in addition to being a sequel), then this next volume can work as its own stand alone trilogy apart from Nolan's trilogy as well.

It's a win-win situation for people who both want to continue what Nolan started but also want a new vision and more "out there" characters. I know they're not the same medium, but this way is very similar to how comics work. The styles of both Year One and Long Halloween are very different from each other; differently written, different in visual style, etc., but how many people are comfortable looking at those 2 comics back-to-back, despite their differences, and willing to place them within the same continuity of each other? I know I am, and I'm fairly confident a lot of other people do as well. So strickly speaking about method, if it can work with comics then why can't it work in film? Why can't 2 sets of films by 2 different creative teams share the same continuity while still making their own distinctive stamp on the character?

What your saying is correct in theory, but only when it comes to comics, where there weren't any rules inherent to those stories you mentioned. It's not like in Year One, they established that the world was somewhat real, and then in TLH they turned it on it's head.

If you allow someone to come in after Nolan, and rework the "rules" of that world he created, your making a lot of the previous trilogy pointless. The only reason why these movies worked is because they were what the fans always wanted character-wise, but with totally original spins on them. I don't see what the problem is in just starting a whole new version and doing something new with it again?

If people were so uncomfortable with someone replacing Heath, I can't imagine how they would accept someone replacing Nolan, the one who created 90% of Heath's template for the role in the first place. He returned Batman to iconic status on film, that's nothing to sneeze at. I think it's dangerous to assume anyone could come in there and tinker with the formula to great results. How quickly we forget, Joel Schumacher did exactly what your suggesting here. He came in, using a previous directors established world, and changed things ever so slightly to make it his own. Now I'm not saying something like that can happen again, to such a disastrous effect, but it's certainly possible......

 

[General Vulcun]

What your saying is correct in theory, but only when it comes to comics, where there weren't any rules inherent to those stories you mentioned. It's not like in Year One, they established that the world was somewhat real, and then in TLH they turned it on it's head.

If you allow someone to come in after Nolan, and rework the "rules" of that world he created, your making a lot of the previous trilogy pointless. The only reason why these movies worked is because they were what the fans always wanted character-wise, but with totally original spins on them. I don't see what the problem is in just starting a whole new version and doing something new with it again?

If people were so uncomfortable with someone replacing Heath, I can't imagine how they would accept someone replacing Nolan, the one who created 90% of Heath's template for the role in the first place. He returned Batman to iconic status on film, that's nothing to sneeze at. I think it's dangerous to assume anyone could come in there and tinker with the formula to great results. How quickly we forget, Joel Schumacher did exactly what your suggesting here. He came in, using a previous directors established world, and changed things ever so slightly to make it his own. Now I'm not saying something like that can happen again, to such a disastrous effect, but it's certainly possible......

For one, I think WB sees how strong a foundation Nolan has created with his films and don't exactly fee like wiping the timeline clean just because he's finished. Thinking about this a lot recently, it just makes more sense IMO to continue off what Nolan started rather than to jump right into something completely fresh, because, as I said, there is still the possibility for something very different from Nolan's films to still be done while remaining within the same timeline.

The look of Gotham can change, the way an actor portrays The Joker, for exampl, can change, and it still wouldn't conflict with what Nolan has done, but create an either/or situation for people who view these films; they can either by apart of the same timeline, or they can be their own separate story.

All that really needs to be done in preserving the timeline and keeping the new trilogy in conjunction with the previous trilogy. The look can change, the portrayals can change, but simple stuff like Two-Face showing up when he died in TDK would cause problems. The events themselve don't even have to be referenced in dialogue, but as long as they aren't contradicted by the events of the new films they can still be looked at as vol.2 of the new Batman franchise.

As well, I don't necessarily think stuff like "there is no Lazarus Pit" or "there are no other superheroes in Nolan's Batman" are rules to be broken with the new trilogy. Yes, Nolan has stated in interviews what his interpretation of Batman is, as well as the existence of Batman as the only superhero in his world, but the films don't state it. Long after these interviews are lost in the internet, the films will still be there to make their statement about what can really happen in the world of these films, pretty much making Nolan's statement in interviews an afterthought after the initial question of "where will Nolan go with 'this' film and 'that film?" has been answered.

Take the Lazarus Pit for example. It's never mentioned in Batman Begins, but that doesn't automatically rule out its existence in the world of Nolan's films. You could argue that because Nolan's films look a certain way that stuff like the Lasarus Pit cannot exist, but Begins never makes an effort to outright deny the existence of it, leaving the possibility open for its inclusion in the future. The same thing goes for other heroes like Superman; the films never deny it. You can look at Nolan's films and say beings like Superman just don't fit in Nolan's realistic Gotham, but for all we know someone like Superman could show up out of the blue tomorrow in our world in the same way he can just show up in Nolan's world. Yes, it would stand out, but the very idea of someone like Superman existing in the first place is very alien (no pun intended), kind of in the same way that Batman in Nolan's world stands from the realistic Gotham because it's an idea of an extraordinary individual like that that we'd have trouble excepting in any capacity in our daily lives.

Just because something is never brought up in conversation or shown doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the world of that film. But regardless of how people view these aspects in Nolan's films, once a new director comes on board then he can make his own rules as to what can be included in his films, and though Nolan chose not to include these aspects in his volume of this timeline, their lack of inclusion does not govern what the new director decides to do (with them) in his volume.

 

[Doc Samson]

For one, I think WB sees how strong a foundation Nolan has created with his films and don't exactly fee like wiping the timeline clean just because he's finished. Thinking about this a lot recently, it just makes more sense IMO to continue off what Nolan started rather than to jump right into something completely fresh, because, as I said, there is still the possibility for something very different from Nolan's films to still be done while remaining within the same timeline.

The look of Gotham can change, the way an actor portrays The Joker, for exampl, can change, and it still wouldn't conflict with what Nolan has done, but create an either/or situation for people who view these films; they can either by apart of the same timeline, or they can be their own separate story.

All that really needs to be done in preserving the timeline and keeping the new trilogy in conjunction with the previous trilogy. The look can change, the portrayals can change, but simple stuff like Two-Face showing up when he died in TDK would cause problems. The events themselve don't even have to be referenced in dialogue, but as long as they aren't contradicted by the events of the new films they can still be looked at as vol.2 of the new Batman franchise.

As well, I don't necessarily think stuff like "there is no Lazarus Pit" or "there are no other superheroes in Nolan's Batman" are rules to be broken with the new trilogy. Yes, Nolan has stated in interviews what his interpretation of Batman is, as well as the existence of Batman as the only superhero in his world, but the films don't state it. Long after these interviews are lost in the internet, the films will still be there to make their statement about what can really happen in the world of these films, pretty much making Nolan's statement in interviews an afterthought after the initial question of "where will Nolan go with 'this' film and 'that film?" has been answered.

Take the Lazarus Pit for example. It's never mentioned in Batman Begins, but that doesn't automatically rule out its existence in the world of Nolan's films. You could argue that because Nolan's films look a certain way that stuff like the Lasarus Pit cannot exist, but Begins never makes an effort to outright deny the existence of it, leaving the possibility open for its inclusion in the future. The same thing goes for other heroes like Superman; the films never deny it. You can look at Nolan's films and say beings like Superman just don't fit in Nolan's realistic Gotham, but for all we know someone like Superman could show up out of the blue tomorrow in our world in the same way he can just show up in Nolan's world. Yes, it would stand out, but the very idea of someone like Superman existing in the first place is very alien (no pun intended), kind of in the same way that Batman in Nolan's world stands from the realistic Gotham because it's an idea of an extraordinary individual like that that we'd have trouble excepting in any capacity in our daily lives.

Just because something is never brought up in conversation or shown doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the world of that film. But regardless of how people view these aspects in Nolan's films, once a new director comes on board then he can make his own rules as to what can be included in his films, and though Nolan chose not to include these aspects in his volume of this timeline, their lack of inclusion does not govern what the new director decides to do (with them) in his volume.

Well, while I certainly respect your opinion, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think Ras in BB was more of a figurehead or mantle passed down from generation to generation, as opposed to an immortal individual. Even when he crashes the party, he basically tells Bruce that Ras as an ideal is immortal or supernatural, not he as a person. Ras al Ghul in Nolan's world is nothing more than a symbol just like Batman, adding the Lazarus Pit changes that and makes that whole character different.

But beyond that, I just feel like there's no need to try and do something different while still trying to inhabit Nolan's created world. Aliens worked because they changed the tone of the film in relation to the first movie, but they didn't change the rules, or the universe. As much as we can go back and forth discussing the different ways another director can follow Nolan, unless they're subscribing to the same limitations and structure, it's not the same world, thus, it's a reboot regardless.

People always bring up how they handle James Bond on film, but Casino Royale is certainly not in the same world that Die another day was, even if the characters are the same. The time period isn't the same, there's no continuity, there's no relation. They've done that for years with James Bond, and every time, it's essentially a reboot. I don't see why Batman should be any different. A new creative team, a new tone, a new universe with new rules but the same players.

 

[Gamma Ray]

Why is everything done as a trilogy these days?

 

[akfj]

Why is everything done as a trilogy these days?

Usually it's the film studio that sets out to make a trilogy beforehand. In this case, Nolan just wants this to be his last Batman film.

 

[General Vulcun]

Why is everything done as a trilogy these days?

In Nolan's case, his story is so big that it needs 3 films to tell it. Same thing with LotR and arguably the original Star Wars trilogy. For other franchises, though, I suppose to them things just look better in 3s. And hypothetically, if the 3rd film in some of these franchises (Spider-Man 3, X-Men 3, etc.) were actually successful and well made, then I'm sure there'd be a 4th film and possibly even a 5th film.

As long as the franchises still churn out good films, there's no reason they can't still produce films & possibly last for decades.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Why is everything done as a trilogy these days?

Rule of 3. It applies to more than film though (mostly every aspect of society).

 

[Cain]

I don't think we should follow continuity of Nolan's after Batman 3. I'd rather see a director with their vision and not be bogged down by another's vision.
.

Exactly!!!


If this man feels he told his story after 3 films then move on to something else. IN 71 years this character has had dozens of interpretations all with their own level of success. Matter of fact in the 22 years I've been reading the comics that's always been the greatest appeal to the comics to me. I get to read so many different versions of Batman that all keep the principle themes intact that it's a blast.

The movie series by WB has also been reflective of that with Burton, Schumacher and Nolan all bringing their own flavor and ideas with the same characters. Would be a shame to see that end just because they decide to stick with and possibly also hinder one specific vision. New director should bring his own flavor and ideas to the table not be restricted by the creations of the previous. Now if it's with subtle and vague references like what Batman Forever did with it's predecessors it's not too bad but I rather something completely fresh.